Hi Eugen, I know, but removing other services is generally done by removing labels on hosts, isn't it? Whatever the way, another concern would be how to deal with _no_schedule and _no_conf_keyring labels when not draining all services on the host. Would it require per service type _no_schedule_labels? I don't know. That's where devs usually chime in. :-) Cheers, Frédéric ----- Le 30 Aoû 24, à 12:33, Eugen Block eblock@xxxxxx a écrit : > Hi, > >> What would be nice is if the drain command could take care of OSDs >> by default and drain all services only when called with a >> --remove-all-services flag or something similar. > > but that would mean that you wouldn't be able to drain only specific > services, and OSDs would be drained either way. From my perspective, > it would suffice to have the --daemon-type flag which is already > present in 'ceph orch ps --daemon-type' command. You could either > drain a specific daemon-type or drain the entire host (can be the > default with the same behaviour as it currently works). That would > allow more control about non-osd daemons. > > Zitat von Frédéric Nass <frederic.nass@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> Hi Robert, >> >> Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, removing the 'osds' label >> from a host does not remove the OSDs, unlike with other labels >> (mons, mgrs, mdss, nfss, crash, _admin, etc.). This is because this >> kind of service is tightly bound to the host and less 'portable' >> than other services, I think. This is likely the purpose of the >> drain command. >> >> What would be nice is if the drain command could take care of OSDs >> by default and drain all services only when called with a >> --remove-all-services flag or something similar. >> >> Frédéric >> >> ----- Le 30 Aoû 24, à 1:07, Robert W. Eckert rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a écrit : >> >>> If you are using cephadm, couldn't the host be removed from placing >>> osds? On my >>> cluster, I labeled the hosts for each service (OSD/MON/MGR/...) and have the >>> services deployed by label. I believe that if you had that, then >>> when a label >>> is removed from the host the services eventually drain. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Frédéric Nass <frederic.nass@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:30 AM >>> To: Eugen Block <eblock@xxxxxx> >>> Cc: ceph-users <ceph-users@xxxxxxx>; dev <dev@xxxxxxx> >>> Subject: Re: ceph orch host drain daemon type >>> >>> Hello Eugen, >>> >>> A month back, while playing with a lab cluster, I drained a >>> multi-service host >>> (OSDs, MGR, MON, etc.) in order to recreate all of its OSDs. During this >>> operation, all cephadm containers were removed as expected, >>> including the MGR. >>> As a result, I got into a situation where the orchestrator backend 'cephadm' >>> was missing and wouldn't load anymore. I didn't have much time to >>> investigate >>> this, so I decided to recreate the lab cluster. But I think this is due to a >>> bug. >>> >>> I would probably have avoided this situation if I had been able to ask the >>> orchestrator to only drain services of type 'osd'. Makes sense. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Frédéric. >>> >>> ----- Le 27 Aoû 24, à 15:19, Eugen Block eblock@xxxxxx a écrit : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> is there anything on the road map to be able to choose a specific >>>> daemon type to be entirely removed from a host instead of all cephadm >>>> managed daemons? I just did a quick search in tracker and github, but >>>> it may be "hidden" somewhere else. >>>> >>>> I was thinking about colocated daemons on a host, for example MON, >>>> MGR, OSDs, node-exporter, crash. That's quite common, but if I just >>>> wanted to drain all OSDs (maybe mark them as "destroyed" in order to >>>> replace the drives), the usual 'ceph orch host drain <host>' command >>>> would remove all daemons. That seems unnecessary if I'm going to add >>>> the OSDs back. >>>> >>>> Since there are a couple of other daemon types which can be deployed >>>> multiple times per host, e. g. MDS, RGW, it doesn't only make sense >>>> for OSDs but for other daemons as well. And those other daemons >>>> usually have some cryptic suffix, we wouldn't need that in order to >>>> get rid of them, it doesn't save that much time, but it could be a >>>> nice enhancement. >>>> >>>> Should I create a tracker issue in the enhancement section for that? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Eugen >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an >>>> email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send >>> an email to > >> ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |